Transforming SustainabilityGrant2013Journal of Corporate Citizenship

JCC 46 Summer 2012 Greenleaf Publishing 2013 1

Transforming Sustainability

Gabriel B. GrantYale University, USA

We are stretching Earths supportive capacity in ways that could become catastrophic for humans and other life on Earth. At the same time, these problems do not elicit our psychological threat response. Is this a fundamental failure of our species which threatens our very survival? Or, could it be a blessing in disguise? External or control-led motivations may be insufficient and even detrimental toward discovering innova-tive solutions, deep or conceptual learning, or expressing values or motivation that transcend individual survival. What motivates us to survive is not what would have us thrive. By distinguishing between the problem-oriented minimisation of unsus-tainability and a possibility or vision-oriented sustainability, we can more clearly articulate how expressions of autonomous, intrinsic or self-determined motivation are the driving force of a sustainability characterised by individual and planetary flourishing in contrast to a sustainability characterised by survival. Building from self-determination theory, a model for vision is designed to create access to generat-ing and sharing autonomous motivation for sustainability. Finally, several sugges-tions are offered for empirical research along with practical recommendations for developing autonomous motivations for sustainability within ones own life, com-munity or organisation.

O Sustainability O Vision O Positive psychology

O Positive organisational scholarship

O Flourishing O Motivation O Self-determination

O Transformation

Gabriel Grant is a new father, the director of the Byron Fellowship Educational Foundation, an organisational leadership and sustainability consultant, and a

doctoral candidate at the Yale Center for Industrial Ecology. He holds an MPhil in leadership and sustainability from Yale University, a MS in ecological

systems engineering and a BS in physics from Purdue University. His academic, professional and non-profit ventures are committed to the dream of all life flourishing together through people experiencing their life as a calling.

His familys purpose is to powerfully contribute to others.

u Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Center for Industrial Ecology, 380 Edwards Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA

! [email protected]

*

* This research is funded in part by a grant from the Sobotka Research Fund. The fund was created with a generous gift intended to support collaborative research and is managed by the Yale Center for Business and the Environment. Additional support is provided by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Several people have contributed in conversation to this research whose works are not cited. Some of those contributors include Marian Chertow, Amy Wrzesniewski, Chad Oliver, Jason Jay, Mark Boyce, Wayne Davis and many others who participated in conversations at The Byron Fellowship and Landmark Education.

JCC46_Grant.indd 1 29/04/13 6:07 PM

deanbarghHighlightthis should be a "mailto:" link

gabriel b. grant

2 JCC 46 Summer 2012 Greenleaf Publishing 2013

S hortly after being elected president of the American Psychological Association in 1998, Martin Seligman noted that 99.9% of psychology focuses on disease and weakness, but psychology had contributed very little to providing access or understanding to strength or virtue (Keyes and Haidt 2003). Positive psychology was born (Keyes and Haidt 2003) and quickly inspired positive organisational scholarship (POS), which investigates what works well in organisations and why (Cameron et al. 2003). A similar transformation is emerging within the sustainability discourse both inspired and supported by work in positive psychology and POS (Ehrenfeld 2008).

Positive psychology and POS have created distinctions within their respective scientific communities that focus inquiry toward creating that which we want: wellness in contrast to curing disease, happiness in contrast to reducing depres-sion, and flourishing organisational cultures in contrast to solving problems of employee engagement, absenteeism or theft. Positive psychology and POS are transforming their respective disciplines and in so doing blaze a trail for a new paradigm for sustainability. Beyond a metaphorical role model, positive psychology and POS are expanding in compelling research and creating the building blocks that could unify the pursuits of individual, organisational and planetary flourishing.

Sustainability is articulated both as great challenge and great opportunity. It can lead to resignation and cynicism or the experience of fulfilment and pur-pose in ones life. It can be bothersome or daunting, or highly motivating and life-giving. The sustainability discourse today focuses on identifying and creat-ing carrots and sticks to control behaviour in order to best save the world from catastrophe. However, there exists a discrepancy between the problem-oriented sustainability rhetoric of today, which primarily speaks to controlled motivation, and a vision-oriented rhetoric supportive of autonomous motivation that may be more appropriate for pursuing sustainability.

Using recent research on motivation from the domain of positive psychol-ogy, this paper supports the idea that intrinsic, self-determined or autonomous motivation is at the heart of a sustainability characterised by flourishing. A model of vision is presented that is designed to create access to generating and sharing autonomous motivation for sustainability. Finally, several suggestions for further research are given to empirically explore the proposed model and practical recommendations are provided for building autonomous motivations for sustainability within ones own life, community or organisation.

Motivation for a sustainable world

Today, we are stretching Earths supportive capacity in ways that could become catastrophic for both humans and other life on Earth (Vitousek et al. 1997; Ayres 2007; Seager 2008; Rockstrm 2009). Yet, at the same time, sustain-ability problems fall short of eliciting our psychological threat response as a species, because they are not forced on us by a clear enemy, are happening too



transforming sustainability

slowly or are some time off in the future, and dont violate our moral sensibili-ties in the same manner as flag burning or the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate (Milbrath 1996; Gilbert 2006). Is this perceived lack of concern and response a programming error on our part? Is it a fundamental failure of our species which threatens our very survival? Or, is it a blessing in disguise?

Fear and other controlled motivations may be insufficient or even detrimen-tal toward discovering innovative solutions, deep or conceptual learning, or expressing values or motives that transcend individual survival. People experi-encing a threat invoke survival responses and are more likely to cling to existing strategies, familiar behaviours and mental models. Fear, rewards, punishments and other sources of controlled motivation not only fail to generate creativity, but can diminish it (Amabile et al. 2005; Norton 2005). When we experience pres-sure, or a threat, we tend to narrow our thought action repertoire, or lock in on familiar courses of action (Fredrickson 2003). Sources of controlled motivation, such as financial incentives, can have detrimental effects on cognitive flexibility or the ability to solve problems that require a shift in thinking (McGraw and McCullers 1979). Rewards and punishments are conducive to algorithmic tasks (for which there is a known procedure), but detrimental to work requiring new procedures or creativity (Amabile 1983).

Creativity can be defined as the production, conceptualisation, or develop-ment of novel and useful ideas, processes, or procedures (Shalley et al. 2000: 215). There exists a strong history of linkage between autonomous motivation and creativity. Autonomous motivation encourages persistence in the face of challenging tasks, effective performance on tasks requiring creativity and con-ceptual understanding, organisational citizenship behaviours and psychological well-being (Gagne and Deci 2005). Autonomous motivation is also associated with task concentration (Amabile 1996), cognitive flexibility and pattern recog-nition (Amabile et al. 2005), and work involving complexity (Gagne and Deci 2005). Pro-social motivation and empathy strengthens the association between autonomous motivation and creativity (Grant and Berry 2011), specifically the development of ideas that are useful for others (Mohrman et al. 2001). Contrary to the conventional wisdom necessity is the mother of invention, the necessity of others is the mother of invention (Grant and Berry 2011: 73). Autonomous motivation and pro-social motivation both support positive emotions, which in turn, further support creativity through increased motivation, psychological engagement and energy for sustained effort (Grant and Berry 2011).

Positive emotions support capacities beyond our survivalist, threat-based responses. Broaden and build theory suggests people experiencing positive emotions tend to think more broadly, are more open to receiving informa-tion, are more creative and are more likely to discover integrative solutions (Fredrickson 2003). Positive affect enables people to see potential relatedness and increases their flexibility in language (Isen et al. 1985), material use (Isen 1999) and pattern recognition (Isen and Daubman 1984). While a positive emotion may be short-lived, it can produce lasting effects such as new dis-coveries, actions and social bonds that build physical, intellectual and social resources (Fredrickson 1998). Whereas survival or threat-based responses may


gabriel b. grant


have evolved to save us from immediate danger, we have co-evolved a parallel system to take on challenges that are in need of more creative, integrative or holistic solutions.

Our threat responses, while immediately motivating, are most likely insuf-ficient for uncovering transformative or integrative solutions called for within the sustainability discourse. Transformative, creative, integrative and interdis-ciplinary solutions that span cognitive boundaries are more likely to be attain-able through autonomous motivation and less likely to be discovered by people experiencing a threat or controlled motivation. Therefore, in the midst of the challenges we face as a society and the seemingly discordant absence of a psycho-logical threat response, there exists an opportunity to create autonomous motiva-tion that is even more appropriate for the challenges and opportunities at hand.

Moral outrage and anger will launch you into orbit, but it wont sustain you (Harry Pickens 2012).

When we express our innate propensities to be self-motivated, agentic and inspired, to learn, to extend ourselves, to master new skills and to apply our talents responsibly, we are understood to be internally motivated such that our motivations are authentic, self-authored or autonomous. Autonomous moti-vation or intrinsic motivation (in contrast to controlled motivation) creates a sense of vitality, interest, curiosity, a drive for mastery, psychological health and empowerment, trust, satisfaction, well-being, creativity and creative problem-solving, innovation, deep or conceptual learning, pro-social behaviour and commitment (Ramos-Martin 2003; Fernandez Young et al. 2003; Gagne and Deci 2005; Deci and Ryan 2008).

In contrast to the drive and cybernetic theories of human behaviour that con-sider homeostatic existence or relaxation to be the natural propensity for human beings and likewise the foundation for well-being, self-determination theory (SDT) considers growth and mastery to be the natural propensity. Rather than exploring how to reduce tension created by external pressures, SDT explores how human beings become proactive, self-motivated and engaged, how we take in societal values and how we autonomously express them as our own. SDT does not concern itself with determining the causes of intrinsic motivation or self-determined behaviour, but rather examines the conditions that elicit and sustain, versus subdue and diminish, this innate propensity (Ryan and Deci 2000: 70).

Internalisation refers to the process by which people take in values, principles, judgements or regulations as their own. As a value or regulation is internalised, the expression of the value becomes one of autonomy (Ryan and Connell 1989). This process of internalisation moves behaviour from non-self-determined or controlled (e.g. I dont pollute because I will get caught) toward self-determined or autonomous (e.g. this is who I am). Through this transition, a person adopts values or controls as their own. Internalisation can be considered the funda-mental process in support of the adage think globally and act locally. Within the pursuit of intrinsic values, individuals have the opportunity to create high levels of inner peace, frequent experiences of moral elevation, deep appreciation of life, [connectedness] not only with themselves but also with a greater whole




that transcends them as individuals, a sense of where they fit in to a bigger picture and are less likely to over-consume (reviewed in Ryan et al. 2008: 162).

A major finding of SDT is that contexts supportive of relatedness, compe-tence and autonomy foster the integration of values or the process of internal-ising (Ryan and Deci 2000). First, people are likely to internalise a value or behaviour that is valued or exhibited by someone they are or want to be related to. Second, they are likely to take on values expressed through behaviours they can perform well. Third, the experience of choice or freedom from having to think or behave a certain way is critical to the experience of autonomy required for an individual to actively transform a value into their own.

From problems to possibility

When we look at any situation, we are trained to identify problems. Scientific inquiry begins with a problem statement. Journalists of all media are trained to seek out what is wrong. This powerful problem orientation has proven itself to be a fruitful path to discovery and change. However, at the end of the problem-solving process, what you have is the absence of the problem you are solving. But what you do not have is the presence of a result you want to create (Fritz 1984: 31). Pursuing sustainability as a problem to be solved falls short of creat-ing sustainability.

A problem orientation focuses on eliminating the symptom and is thus path dependent and reductionist, often overlooking root causes and integrative solu-tions. This creates the potential for a rebound effect, which is the tendency for the symptoms of a problem, when treated, to come back stronger than they origi-nally were. A classic example of rebound is the Jevons Paradox: when products are made more efficient, cost drops and people use more of them, increasing the overall demand on resources. Thus efficiency may create short-term resource conservation but diminish long-term conservation (Jevons 1866; Alcott 2005). Figure 1 illustrates examples of side-effects from reductionist, problem-centred approaches and their corresponding fundamental solutions or, what we want to create. By looking at the negative side-effect and the original problem symptom, one can see the potential for a feedback loop that will create a rebound effect. Problem solving buys time, but falls short of creating what we want (Fritz 1984) and likely passes on a bigger problem to a future generation (Jackson and Clift 1998; Ehrenfeld 2008).

Advocating for sustainability using communication focused on controlled motivations such as impending threats (e.g. An Inconvenient Truth) has two possible unintended consequences. First, the communicator and the recipient experience a diminished capacity for autonomy since their spoken rationale is given by extrinsic circumstance rather than intrinsic or chosen aspiration. Second, there is a diminished potential to build trust or relatedness between the communicator and the recipient since the autonomous motivations are not expressed or worse, trust can be diminished if the autonomous motivations


gabriel b. grant


Figure 1 Reductionist, problem-centred side-effects Source: Adapted from Ehrenfeld 2008

Fundamental solution

Problem Symptomaticsolution

Reinforcingside-effect

Prudent banking practices

Bankfailures

Federalinsurance

Responsibilitydisappears

Skills training

Poor employeeperformance

Managercompensatesfor employee

Erosion ofconfidence and

relationship

(such as underlying values) occur as disguised or hidden (e.g. between the general public and the scientific community with regard to climate change). Furthermore, narrating these threats often requires the creation of a villain which can galvanise a small group, but at the expense of creating relatedness with anyone outside the group. Leveraging these controlled motivators under-mines self-determination and is likely to stifle rather than build autonomous proactive and pro-social behaviour. As SDT would lead us to expect, Kahan (2010) observes that beginning our communication with a problem creates a rebound effect of denial, resistance and further polarisation. This quick grab for behavioural change is a short-term reactionary game that will fall short of contributing toward autonomous motivation for sustainability.

I was once asked why I dont participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, Ill be there (Mother Teresa).

Awareness is emerging within the sustainability discourse that pursuing what will have us survive is separate and distinct from what will have us thrive. Minimising threats is distinct from creating flourishing or a world we want, likewise minimising unsustainability is distinct from creating sustainability (Ehrenfeld 2008; Haigh 2012). Sustainability and unsustainability are not two sides of the same coin (Ehrenfeld 2008: 20). However, nearly all that is done today that goes by the name of sustainability is really merely minimising unsus-tainability (e.g. eco-efficiency, natural capital, The Natural Step, triple bottom line) (Ehrenfeld 2008: 21).

Both weak and strong sustainability are conceived within a paradigm of scarcity (as are nearly all of our theories in psychology, economics and busi-ness) and built on the assumption that wellness is bound to capital. Decoupling this assumption is a fundamental transformation required to transcend the paradigm of scarcity. Subsistence and survival are bound to capital; flourishing and well-being are not. National life satisfaction (an indicator for well-being) decouples from income at about US$10,000 in GDP per capita, above which increased GDP has significantly diminishing returns while quality of relation-ships has proportionally more responsibility for well-being (Diener and Seligman 2004: 5). This decoupling, known as the Easterlin Paradox, is well documented




on the national level (Seligman 2011); however, we continue to behave on an individual level as though the continuous pursuit of wealth (as measured in economic transactional terms) will contribute to our wellness. Having evolved within a paradigm of scarcity, our mental models have not yet adapted, nor have our behaviours, to refocus on other values such as the quality of our relationships which would provide a higher return. We continue to pursue extrinsic goals, as if our survival is at stake, at the expense of pursuing our own well-being.

SDT has given new distinction to Aristotles idea of eudaimonia or a way of living that is focused on what is intrinsically worthwhile to human beings (Ryan et al. 2008: 147). Eudaimonia can be defined as the pursuit of intrinsic or first-order values which are not reducible to other values and a value that does not exist for the sake of another value (Ryan et al. 2008: 148). Extrinsic values are second-order or tertiary values which are a means to an end, but not intrinsic themselves. For example, making money to become appreciated values money, but as a second-order value, whereas a first-order value may simply be relatedness. Analogous to the rebound effect, preoccupation with extrinsic or second-order values results in a diminished attainment of first-order or intrinsic values. Fulfilment of the extrinsic goals corresponding to controlled motivations falls short of satisfying our basic psychological needs or achieving wellness, while fulfilment of our first-order or intrinsic goals tends toward fulfilling our psychological needs and creating wellness (Lam and Gurland 2008; Ryan et al. 2008). Similarly, the pursuit of first-order or intrinsic values tends to promote planetary flourishing, while the pursuit of second-order or controlled motiva-tions can lead away from sustainability supportive behaviours and attitudes (Kasser 2011). Table 1 contrasts expressions of first-order values or visions (what we want) with expressions of second-order values (what we settle for) and prob-lems to be solved (or what we dont want).

Table 1 Expressions of what we really want vs. what we dont want Source: Adapted from Meadows 1996 and Costanza 2000

What we dont want What we settle for What we really want

Self-doubt/Meaninglessness

Fancy car Autonomy/mastery/ purpose

Loneliness Status Relatedness/ connectedness/love

Illness Drugs/treatment Serenity/wellness

Catastrophe Self-survival Prosperity for all

Poverty GDP growth Well-being

Loss Profit Contribution

Unsustainability Sustainability Flourishing or generative systems

Apathy or resistance Controlled motivation

Self-expression, self-determination


gabriel b. grant


Sustainability is less a matter of wanting too much and more a matter of set-tling or wanting too little. In reacting to unsustainability, we have yet to imagine what pursuing sustainability would look like. For a long time, advocates of sus-tainability have critically reflected on the movements need to articulate com-pelling visions, leverage transformational leadership and create paradigmatic or transformative change (Gladwin et al. 1995; Handmer and Dovers 1996; Meadows 1996; Ehrenfeld 2000; Costanza 2001). Envisioning, however, is all but non-existent within the sustainability discourse. Creating a world we want requires us to envision how we want the world to be (Meadows 1996; Costanza 2001). In the words of Frances Moore Lapp (2010), we humans arent likely to abandon the old until we can glimpse the new.

Problem solving is taking action to have something go awaythe problem. Creating is taking action to have something come into beingthe creation. Most of us have been raised in a tradition of problem solving and have had little real exposure to the creative process (Robert Fritz 1984: 31).

In contrast to a problem to be dealt with or a threat to be responded to, sustain-ability can be articulated as a compelling vision of a possible future: for example, Sustainability is the possibility of humans and other life flourishing together (Ehrenfeld 2008: 53). Building a capacity for envisioning, or crafting and com-municating vision, could allow access to both our well-established problem-solving methodologies and new possibility or vision-oriented approaches that have previously been underutilised by sustainability advocates and practition-ers. One such capacity would be leadership capable of inspiring people to tran-scend self-interest toward a higher collective purpose. Leadership of this form is understood as transformational leadership and at its foundation is vision (Burns 1978; Bass 1985; Senge 1990; Bass and Avolio 1994; Nutt and Backoff 1997; Kouzes and Posner 2007).

Envisioning sustainability

Visions are subjective expressions of our values manifested in the form of a possible future. A vision is defined by what we are for rather than what we are against. In contrast to beginning with whats wrong, a vision is given by ques-tions such as: What is it that we want? What do we want for ourselves, for our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren? What do we want for humanity? Who do we want to be? Who do we want to be as a people? Whereas a problem begins with descriptions of the present reality, a vision begins in language of a future we want to create. Whereas a problem occurs as given by the circumstances and supported by observable data, a vision is created, cho-sen freely and discontinuous from the past. A vision is inspired by our goals, dreams, aspirations or values; it has the power to reach beyond the rational, reasonable, sufficient, probable or necessary and tap into intrinsic motivations that transcend our own survival. These possible futures, with no real existence




beyond our language, are free to be chosen or not chosen, thereby being intrin-sic and autonomy supportive.

Possibilities are empty, created by the declarative power of human language. Pos-sibilities are unconstrained by the limits to action created by following deterministic rules that are the product of past experience and limit action to incremental change. If societies can escape the bounds of the existing mode of living, then all is possible, even that which does not appear available from inside the existing paradigm (John Ehrenfeld 2000: 233).

Envisioning, or the process of creating vision, is suggested not as a substitute or replacement for problem-solving, but rather as a preliminary step. Vision, in the proposed model, creates problems. Through this process, problems are actively and autonomously chosen. Problems do not inherently exist but rather exist as the creative tension or discrepancy between the world as it is, and the world we are actively choosing for the future (Fritz 1989; Senge 1990). In con-trast to being imposed by an outside force, this model creates access to people actively defining and choosing the problems they are taking on, consistent with the vision of the world they want to create.

Within an objective context, envisioning devolves into predictions of the future based on the past which are more appropriately termed projections, scenarios or forecasts. These scenarios are distinct from what is described by or called for as vision here and within the domain of transformational leader-ship. Predictable futures are diametrical to self-determined futures and do not express (and thus are unlikely to share or inspire) autonomous motivation.

The miracle of your mind isnt that you can see the world as it is. Its that you can see the world as it isnt (Kathryn Schulz 2011).

Crafting a vision is not a matter of describing foreseeable futures, but rather creating a future that does not already exist. This process is a creative act that brings into being (if only in language) a possible future that was previously non-existent, improbable or unforeseeable. Crafting a vision creates a moment of definition described by Kenneth Burke (1945: 24) as a strategic moment, an alchemic moment, wherein momentous miracles of transformation can take place. For here the intrinsic and the extrinsic change places. A vision is an extrinsic manifestation of the intrinsic. At its creation or moment of definition, the dualism briefly breaks down, intrinsic and extrinsic collapse into one, and then are each reborn. What was an intrinsic value is expressed as an extrinsic vision, the internal value as manifested in the external world.

Sharing in the creative process

The use of vision here is not suggested as a macro-level concept. It is not meant to suggest visions be complete, all-encompassing (e.g. a utopia, ecotopia or dystopia) or comprehensive. It does not suggest envisioning be done by a


gabriel b. grant


specific group of people (e.g. scientists) or is best done by experts. It does not suggest that a vision is a future scenario projected from the present. And, it does not suggest that visions need to be agreed on. Although visions may create opportunities to unite people who are seemingly in opposition (Weisbord 1992; Weisbord and Janoff 2010), this is not meant to promote the idea of unification of a single vision or set of visions. Shared visions at a macro-level may emerge; however, a call for unified definitions or visions of sustainability is not implied or supported. In contrast, the intention behind this work is to create access to envisioning for anyone and to promote a diversity of visions that may co-exist, complement, merge or collide with each other. Thus, macro-level impacts are not focused on a single shared vision but rather emergent effects of a self-expressed, related and forward-looking society involved in the ongoing process of envisioning and acting in accordance with the world we want to create.

Offering a vision, that is an expression of first-order values or what we really want, can be both autonomy supportive and frame the communication around an intrinsic goal. Intrinsic goal framing supports autonomous motivation and produces deeper engagement, deeper learning and higher persistence when compared with extrinsic goal framing (Vansteenkiste et al. 2006: 19). Intrinsic goal framing supports or creates the opportunity for autonomous motivation (e.g. for the joy of solving problems, helping others or to live a committed, pur-poseful or meaningful life). Approaching sustainability as a vision, therefore, is likely to support rather than diminish autonomy, and to support a capacity for internalisation. In contrast, sharing sustainability as a problem is likely to obfuscate the intrinsic or first-order goals by bestowing consequences, rewards and punishments and supporting controlled motivation. In so doing, we should expect to diminish autonomous motivation thereby lowering engagement, per-sistence and deep learning.

Donella Meadows (1996) pointed out that we will not achieve a desirable, sustainable world before we envision what it will look like. Creating a world we want will require acting on our own vision or values, as the creator, cause or origin of our behaviour. Said another way, determining our future as a society presupposes that we can intentionally determine our future as individuals. Expressing vision and values, in contrast to expressing social or environmental problems in need of a solution, opens the door for self-determination and brings into alignment the pursuit of planetary and individual flourishing.

Transformation requires a vision on which we can act that is informed by, yet unconstrained by, our understanding of the past. In this sense, [Sustainability] is a future vision from which we can design and then construct our present way of living (Ehrenfeld 2000: 233). The converse approach, designing our present way of living based on our analysis of the past, restricts us to a possibility set based on the past and is ultimately extrinsically motivated, incremental, reac-tionary, path dependent and inadequate for supporting autonomous motivation or creating a self-determined world. Behaviour consistent with the possibility of sustainability is behaviour derived not from the past but from the future we want to create. This behaviour (being and acting) is thus proactively generated or self-determined, in contrast to being reactive or given by circumstance.

JCC46_Grant.indd 10 29/04/13 6:07 PM



Action driven by vision or possibility can occur as rationally consistent with the world we want to create, but may occur as irrational or inconsistent with the world as it is. Since the world we want to create is clearly imaginary or a projection of our values and not measurable or a matter of fact, we risk appear-ing as irrational to anyone to whom we have not yet communicated our vision or values.1

Our great leaders in history (e.g. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Gandhi) have demonstrated that this self-determination can perturb the system in such a way that the rules are irrevocably changed, resulting in a new paradigm being created. It is important to note the asymmetric perspectives that emerge over time. What occurred to an observer at one time as irrational behaviour will occur to a future observer (living in the new paradigm with a new set of rules) as entirely rational behaviour (e.g. non-violence in reaction to violence, respect and forgiveness in reaction to disrespect and domination).

Declaring or communicating a vision allows what could have been perceived as irrational behaviour, given the present circumstances, to occur as rational behaviour in accordance with the declared vision. Declaring ones vision is a moment of definition where what was intrinsic becomes extrinsic. Through communicating vision, the sociocultural pressures to behave according to exist-ing extrinsic circumstances are alleviated, and a new sociocultural pressure or accountability to fulfil our declared vision is created. Communicating vision provides a beginning or pathway toward creating a self-determined life.

Where do we start?

We can start by digging down and being authentic about our values or what inspires us to pursue sustainability. Thriving or creating the world we want is driven by autonomous or intrinsic motivations and begins with our own self-expression. What is it that we really care about? What do we most want to contribute or create in the world? What commitment lies behind the problems weve chosen to pursue? We can, if we choose, give up our claims to suffer-ing, martyrdom and threats of impending doom, and we can pursue planetary flourishing as our own self-expression. If we can flourish ourselves, then we can invite others to share in the experience out of love rather than righteousness.

1 To provide an illustration, we can consider an agent-based model. The agents behave according to variables that are a function of the present state of the system which is a func-tion of the past. The proposed model of vision postulates that to create self-determined, transformational or paradigmatic change, the agent would act not merely as a function of the past and present, but consistent with an imagined possible future or vision. This will never occur in an agent-based model because the agent would be breaking the rules or code, imposed by the modeller, governing the agents behaviour. However, if this were to occur, the agent would occur as self-determined (or irrational) to the surrounding agents who are governed by a set of rules given by the past and present (or the existing paradigm).

JCC46_Grant.indd 11 29/04/13 6:07 PM

gabriel b. grant


Engaging in a dialogue of envisioning sustainability is likely to bolster our own self-determination and allow us to more powerfully share it with others. In contrast, by translating our intrinsic values into language expressing con-trolled motivations (e.g. money and risk), we should not expect others to share (internalise) the values that are important to us. If others dont get it a powerful starting point for reflection could be that we havent learned to share it.

Positive psychology provides the tools to measure individual flourishing in the pursuit of planetary flourishing and we can each begin immediately. We have dominion over our personal direct emissions, a.k.a. our speaking. Are we contributing toward self-determination or flourishing? Are we supporting autonomy, competence and relatedness? Are our conversations and those of our peers internally or externally motivated? Are we articulating first-order, second or tertiary values? Our individual conversations are the place to start.

We can also begin by measuring our organisational scope one social impact. Are people experiencing self-determination? Are they self-motivated, agentic and inspired? Are they pursuing mastery and learning? Are they experienc-ing vitality, curiosity, trust and relatedness? Is the pursuit of sustainability framed as a first-order value or as a profit mechanism? Does this mediate or moderate personal flourishing in the pursuit of planetary flourishing? Does self-determination mediate work motivation, engagement, values alignment, organisational identification or commitment? How does the pursuit of societal value as a first-order value impact shareholder value? Through these inquiries and others we may create or identify pathways that align personal, organisa-tional and planetary flourishing.

Finally, some suggest we mimic nature, while others point out that nature is a survival of the fittest, competition-based reality. Perhaps the very things that make us human, when embraced, will allow us to be in flourishing relation-ship with one another and the other life forms that inhabit our Earth. From this perspective, sustainability is no longer a threat to humanity, but rather the ultimate opportunity to express our humanity.

References

Alcott, B. (2005) Jevons Paradox, Ecological Economics 54.1: 9-21.Amabile, T.M. (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualiza-

tion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45.2: 357-76.Amabile, T. (1996) Creativity in Context (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Amabile, T.M., S.G. Barsade, J.S. Mueller and B.M. Staw (2005) Affect and Creativity at

Work, Administrative Science Quarterly 50.3: 367-403.Ayres, R. (2007) On the Practical Limits to Substitution, Ecological Economics 61.1: 115-28.Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press;

London: Collier Macmillan).Bass, B.M., and B.J. Avolio (1994) Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transforma-

tional Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).Burke, K. (1945) A Grammar of Motives (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

JCC46_Grant.indd 12 29/04/13 6:07 PM



Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1st edn).Cameron, K.S., J.E. Dutton and R.E. Quinn (2003) Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foun-

dations of a New Discipline (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 1st edn).Costanza, R. (2000) Visions of Alternative (Unpredictable) Futures and Their Use in Policy

Analysis, Conservation Ecology 4.1: 5 (www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art5).Costanza, R. (2001) Visions, Values, Valuation, and the Need for an Ecological Economics,

Bioscience 51.6: 459-68.Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan (2008) Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human

Motivation, Development, and Health, Canadian Psychology-Psychologie Canadienne 49.3: 182-85.

Diener, E., and M.E.P. Seligman (2004) Beyond Money: Toward an Economy of Well-Being, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5.1: 1-31.

Ehrenfeld, J.R. (2000) Industrial Ecology: Paradigm Shift or Normal Science? American Behavioral Scientist 44.2: 229-44.

Ehrenfeld, J. (2008) Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy for Transforming our Con-sumer Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Fernandez Young, A., J. Moon and R. Young (2003) The UK Corporate Social Responsibil-ity Consultancy Industry: A Phenomenological Approach, in D. Matten (ed.), Research Paper Series (Nottingham, UK: International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility).

Fredrickson, B.L. (1998) What Good are Positive Emotions? Review of General Psychology 2.3: 300-19.

Fredrickson, B.L. (2003) The Value of Positive Emotions, American Scientist 91.4: 330-35.Fritz, R. (1984) The Path of Least Resistance: Principles for Creating What You Want to Create

(Salem, MA: DMA).Fritz, R. (1989) The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own

Life (New York: Fawcett Columbine, rev. and expanded edn).Gagne, M., and E.L. Deci (2005) Self-determination Theory and Work Motivation, Journal

of Organizational Behavior 26.4: 331-62.Gilbert, D. (2006) If Only Gay Sex Caused Global Warming, Los Angeles Times, 2 July 2006. Gladwin, T.N., T.-S. Krause and J.J. Kennelly (1995) Beyond Eco-efficiency: Towards Socially

Sustainable Business, Sustainable Development 3.1: 35-43.Grant, A.M., and J.W. Berry (2011) The Necessity of Others Is the Mother of Invention:

Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking, and Creativity, Academy of Management Journal 54.1: 73-96.

Handmer, J.W., and S.R. Dovers (1996) A Typology of Resilience: Rethinking Institutions for Sustainable Development, Organization & Environment 9.4: 482-511.

Hoffman, A., and N. Haigh (2012) Positive Deviance for a Sustainable World: Linking Sus-tainability and Positive Organizational Scholarship, in K.S. Cameron and G.M. Spreitzer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship (New York: Oxford University Press): 953-64.

Isen, A.M. (1999) On the Relationship between Affect and Creative Problem Solving, in S.W. Russ (ed.), Affect, Creative Experience, and Psychological Adjustment (Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel).

Isen, A.M., and K.A. Daubman (1984) The Influence of Affect on Categorization, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47.6: 1206-17.

Isen, A.M., M.M.S. Johnson, E. Mertz and G.F. Robinson (1985) The Influence of Positive Affect on the Unusualness of Word-Associations, Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 48.6: 1413-26.

Jackson, T., and R. Clift (1998) Wheres the Profit in Industrial Ecology? Journal of Industrial Ecology 2.1: 3-5.

Jevons, W.S. (1866) The Coal Question; An Enquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of our Coal-mines (London: Macmillan, 2nd edn).

JCC46_Grant.indd 13 29/04/13 6:07 PM

gabriel b. grant


Kahan, D. (2010) Fixing the Communications Failure, Nature 463.7279: 296-97.Kasser, T. (2011) Ecological Challenges, Materialistic Values, and Social Change, in R.

Biswas-Diener (ed.), Positive Psychology as Social Change (Dordrecht: Springer Nether-lands): 89-108.

Keyes, C.L.M., and J. Haidt (2003) Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1st edn).

Kouzes, J.M., and B.Z. Posner (2007) The Leadership Challenge (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 4th edn).

Lam, C.F., and S.T. Gurland (2008) Self-determined Work Motivation Predicts Job Out-comes, But What Predicts Self-determined Work Motivation? Journal of Research in Personality 42.4: 1109-15.

Lapp, F.M. (2010) Believing Is Seeing, Solutions for a Sustainable and Desirable Future, www.thesolutionsjournal.com, accessed 29 March 2013.

McGraw, K.O., and J.C. McCullers (1979) Evidence of a Detrimental Effect of Extrinsic Incen-tives on Breaking a Mental Set, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15.3: 285-94.

Meadows, D.H. (1996) Envisioning a Sustainable World, in R. Costanza, O. Segura and J. Martinez-Alier (eds.), Getting Down to Earth, Practical Applications of Ecological Economics (Washington, DC: Island Press).

Milbrath, L.W. (1996) Learning to Think Environmentally: While There is Still Time (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).

Mohrman, S.A., C.B. Gibson and A.M. Mohrman Jr (2001) Doing Research That Is Useful to Practice: A Model and Empirical Exploration, The Academy of Management Journal 44.2: 357-75.

Norton, B.G. (2005) Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Nutt, P.C., and R.W. Backoff (1997) Facilitating Transformational Change, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 33.4: 490-508.

Pickens, H. (2012) Creativity, presentation given to the Byron Fellowship, Marshall, Indiana, 24 May 2012.

Ramos-Martin, J. (2003) Empiricism in Ecological Economics: A Perspective from Complex Systems Theory, Ecological Economics 46.3: 387-98.

Rockstrm, J. (2009) Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Human-ity, Ecology and Society 14.2: 32.

Ryan, R.M., and J.P. Connell (1989) Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Exam-ining Reasons for Acting in Two Domains, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57.5: 749-61.

Ryan, R.M., and E.L. Deci (2000) Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-being, American Psychologist 55.1: 68-78.

Ryan, R.M., V. Huta and E.L. Deci (2008) Living Well: A Self-determination Theory Perspec-tive on Eudaimonia, Journal of Happiness Studies 9.1: 139-70.

Schulz, K. (2011) On Being Wrong, TED, blog.ted.com/2011/04/19/on-being-wrong- kathryn-schulz-on-ted-com, accessed 20 March 2013.

Seager, T.P. (2008) The Sustainability Spectrum and the Sciences of Sustainability, Business Strategy and the Environment 17.7: 444-53.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2011) Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being (New York: Free Press, 1st Free Press hardcover edn).

Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1st edn).

Shalley, C.E., L.L. Gilson and T.C. Blum (2000) Matching Creativity Requirements and the Work Environment: Effects on Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave, The Academy of Management Journal 43.2: 215-23.

JCC46_Grant.indd 14 29/04/13 6:07 PM



Vansteenkiste, M., W. Lens and E.L. Deci (2006) Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in Self-Determination Theory: Another Look at the Quality of Academic Motivation, Educational Psychologist 41.1: 19-31.

Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco and J.M. Melillo (1997) Human Domination of Earths Ecosystems, Science 277.5325: 494-99.

Weisbord, M.R. (1992) Discovering Common Ground: How Future Search Conferences Bring People Together to Achieve Breakthrough Innovation, Empowerment, Shared Vision, and Col-laborative Action (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1st edn).

Weisbord, M.R., and S. Janoff (2010) Future Search: Getting the Whole System in the Room for Vision, Commitment, and Action (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 3rd edn).

q

JCC46_Grant.indd 15 29/04/13 6:07 PM

JCC46_Grant.indd 16 29/04/13 6:07 PM

Transforming SustainabilityGrant2013Journal of Corporate Citizenship

Documents

Transcript of Transforming SustainabilityGrant2013Journal of Corporate Citizenship